About Me

****PLEASE NOTE WELL****
Any email sent concerning this blog or related to it in anyway, at this address, are subject to possible publication in my blog.

**** PLEASE ALSO NOTE ****
Editorial content of this blog is the property of the Blog Owner. Feel free to quote from the editorial content, while giving proper credit and link. Articles credited with other authors/copyrights are to be credited as such.

Hey HILLARY! Can you come to my 12 Step Meeting?

I almost laughed so hard I was afraid that my 'zipper' incision from last year would suddenly split open... HILLARY can CONTROL HER HUSBAND???

My FIRST thought as a friend of Bill's wife, Lois, was... YOU CAN??? Do you know how many spouses in Alanon have TRIED to control their spouses for YEARS??? I guffawed! I chortled....

My SECOND thought was "WHO ARE YOU TRYING TO FOOL, Hillary??" If you could control BILL, how did he ever get away with his extramarital dalliances (to put it nicely) before you got into the White House, AND... where were you when MONICA was in the Oval Office with him?

NO ONE can ever control another human being! Not even Hillary Rodham Clinton. Only he can control himself....er..... I guess even he cannot do so...

I not only chortled and guffawed, I snickered, I nearly rolled on the floor laughing. I managed to hold myself together, however, and did not split that incision!

Thursday, January 31, 2008

Karel Weirich, a Czech journalist , is the subject in "The Schindler of Pius X" written by Gaetano Vallini, an article in the L’Osservatore Romano. His story is alsofound in a book titled "A Re-found Joy" by Alberto Tronchin. (That is IF this is the correct translation. I can only find one reference to the book online, 'translated' by Google... from Italian to English...) . I would like to read his story if I can ever find it in English!

"When you love someone...."

I have been sitting on this, just thinking about what was said and my reaction to the words when I heard them the first night that they were said. Why? Because the feeling that they evoked was revulsion and disbelief when they came from the mouth of the one saying them.

I cannot get into the heads of Bill and Hillary, but I don't trust (nor like what I know/see) either of them. "Billiary" is the term that ran through my head when I was watching him speak the words... as in "Gall" bladder.

The problem that I have with his words is the 'when you love someone' aspect of it and the history of HIS behavior... When you love someone you cheat on that someone? You have sex with many others? You have sex with a young female in the White House while married to another?

Does he really know the meaning of the word "LOVE"? Because he certainly does NOT know the meaning of Fidelity, Faithfulness... nor of the meaning of wedding vows.

The two of them have a very strange relationship, to say the least.

One article did not quote him, but did add a bit to it, highlighted below:

Clinton told a crowd of about 200 people Thursday morningthat when he was running for president,he didn't care what anyone said about him.But he says it's harder to ignore when you love someone and think she would be good in the job.

Bill Clinton seemed to acknowledge that he might have to tone it down, when one woman at an event said she was sick of seeing all of the "bickering and baiting" between Hillary and Obama."That is pretty good advice," he said. "It is interesting, that is probably good advice for me, too. This is a lot harder for me than campaigning for myself ever was. When I was running, I didn't give a rip what anyone was saying about me. But when you love someone, it is harder."

This is a very big show and should help get on other shows throughout the country, so I reiterate my message once again:

These interviews have been made possible by your purchase of autographed copies of Taken Into Custody from ACFC. Proceeds from these sales have helped procure these interviews. To buy an autographed copy of Taken Into Custody, please go to the ACFC website: www.acfc.org, where you should click at the icon for the book.

My thanks to ACFC, and all who have contributed to this campaign.

Thanks too to the many people who have been helping to arrange radio interviews. Once again, if you have media contacts, please notify them. Radio is the single best way to publicize a book.

Also, I was recently interviewed on Liberty Watch Radio (but did not publicize it beforehand). Here is the link to listen online:

Dr. Stephen Baskerville who is a professor of government at Patrick Henry College has a LOT to say about the "industry" of divorce and the state power grab that goes along with it. Excellent 45.34 minutes.

Hannity makes no sense....

I talk back to the TV. Ask my kids about it. They often have told me that those I am talking to cannot hear me.

I know that, but I feel better saying out loud what I am thinking when I get frustrated, or even overjoyed at what I hear.

Quite awhile back, I was talking back to Hannity a lot, because he was continually pushing Rudy Giuliani as the best choice for President of the United States. At the time, no one had really announced just yet, but Sean Hannity really wanted Rudy to run. At one point, he even verbalized that we may have to give up some of our stands in order to have a President who would stand firm against the nation's enemies. I thought that I had blogged on this back then, but I cannot find it. I was livid.

WHY? Because not only was Rudy NOT in favor of most of the things that many have used as part of determining who they would vote for. There are LIFE issues that I look for, among other things, and he stood solidly against them. "Personally opposed to abortion, but..." is not part of my vocabulary on any of those issues--Abortion, Euthanasia, Embryonic Stem Cell Research and Cloning, and Marriage being between one man and one woman.

So tonight I am listening to Hannity again, and tonight he is definitely fired up about why McCain is NOT 'conservative enough'...and why he is opposed to McCain's candidacy... and I am thinking, "But a few months back, your issue was keeping the country 'safe' by having RUDY run, who does NOT stand for any single other issue that 'conservative' voters think are important (moral issues, true)... and you were willing to give those up to keep us safe... yet McCain DOES have the same firm stand against Islamic fanatics, AND is pro-life...and you don't want him ??"

Hannity speaks out of both sides of his mouth sometimes.

As a Catholic, there is no way that I could support Rudy Guiliani. I am glad that he has left the race. As a man, I have no respect for him for his personal life. His word is NOT honorable, as evidenced by broken vows, infidelity, two previous marriages. Sorry if that offends anyone, but if a man's word is his honor--Rudy fails.

I do not know WHO I am going to vote for this year. NONE of those left impress me. Not one.Romney is a Chameleon... McCain worked with Feingold (argh!) and got their bill passed, and has also done other things that I did not agree with. But... he 'can work with the other side of the aisle'... right....

Huckabee hasn't a snowball's chance in Hell of succeeding, even though he has been doing MUCH better than many ever thought he would.

Those I did like are no longer in the race.

Meanwhile, Clinton is making me wonder what she will ever do when Venezuela's President starts calling HER the devil... cry? Say he is picking on her???

And Obama is such a good speaker, with sound bytes all over his speeches ("Yes, WE CAN!") that many are swept away with his words alone...

Primaries are coming up, and for the first time in my life, I do not have a candidate that I really want to vote for. Not even to prevent someone else from winning.

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Israeli Holocaust museum honors Byzantine Catholic bishop

The Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial in Jerusalem has accorded the title of "Righteous among the Nations" to Blessed Pavol Gojdic, A Byzantine bishop who served in Slovakia from 1926 to 1960.

The rabbi of Kosice, Slovakia, Jossi Steiner, and a Jewish woman whose life was saved by Bishop Gojdic initiated the process to grant the honorary title to the Catholic prelate, who was beatified by Pope John Paul II in 2001.

The honor granted to Bishop Gojdic, who suffered imprisonment under the Communist regime, has special significance as Jewish people have sometimes accused Catholics in Slovakia of actively assisting the Holocaust.

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Chameleon

I have been trying to think of why Mitt Romney bothers me, and last night, I thought of the word... the description...

CHAMELEON.

1: any of a family (Chamaeleontidae) of chiefly arboreal Old World lizards with prehensile tail, independently movable eyeballs, and unusual ability to change the color of the skin2 a:a person given to often expedient or facile change in ideas or characterb: one that is subject to quick or frequent change especially in appearance

From another source:snip... 1.....It is remarkable for its ability to change the color of its skin to blend with its surroundings. Note: Its color changes more or less with the color of the objects about it, or with its temper when disturbed. In a cool, dark place it is nearly white, or grayish; on admitting the light, it changes to brown, bottle-green, or blood red, of various shades, and more or less mottled in arrangment. 2. a person who changes opinions, ideas, or behavior to suit the prevailing social climate; an opportunist. [PJC]

Further down the page, chameleon n 1: a changeable or inconstant person

He seems to be whatever he needs to be in order to accomplish what he wants to, regardless of what he was a short time before. He seems to use words that sound good to others, but are not necessarily what that other may be thinking he means.

He changes with the political climate, yet points to others as the 'cause'. He acts a certain way, then accuses others of doing what he just did. He likes to take the focus off of himself by pointing out others faults, including demanding apologies for 'offenses' of others when they point out HIS weaknesses, in response to his own words.

I don't get the impression that he is honest. I don't believe him any more than I believe Rudy. To me, it is open mouth, out comes empty promises.

Chameleon. Pro-Choice then pro-life...only one example, but there are others.

You know the others that have always seemed that way to me are the Clintons. I just can't believe them, either.

Below is a statement in support of Israel from Ayman Hassan who still lives in the Middle East.

Shalom. As an Arab Muslim I once asked myself: Why do I hate Israel? I really thought about this question. After little deliberation the answer was clear, because I am a Muslim and Islam is extremely intolerant. It's the intolerance to everything non Muslim, that is the problem and I say this as a Muslim, but today I have rejected the teachings of Islam for this very reason. I have left Islam. As an Arab "Palestinian", living in Lebanon, coming from a Muslim family, I was brought up with the hatred of Jews, Christians, and all non Muslims. Now I'm 24, I have matured enough to view the world through a different perspective; I reviewed real history and studied the sequence of events before and after the restoration of the State of Israel. I decided to step outside the mindset of a typical Muslim. It didn't take long to realize that I was on the wrong track and I moved quickly to the other side. In order to be at peace with myself I have come to reject the hatred of Israel and nowlove my former enemy. I have not embraced another religion but I am pursuing a new spiritual path.

Why do the Arabs and Muslims have to reject the presence of a Jewish state in a tiny percentage of the land of the Middle East? Why Islamic intolerance forbids other nations their right to exist in their own land. The whole world should realize that Islam is at war with all nations on the planet. In our Muslim societies it is not "the extremists" but the whole society infected with this hatred. It is in the mosques, the schools, the media and in the homes of nearly every Muslim family. It isn't just Israel but the hatred of America and Christians, Islam hates all other religions. In the case of Israel, its only fault is that it's a Jewish state who wants to live in peace within its borders.

It's not a struggle of so called "Palestinians" to establish a country and retain some land, which was never theirs, I know because I studied the real history. The real problem is racism and the intolerance of Muslims, the blind hatred and jealousy to see a flourishing, strong and modern country where people from other faiths can live peacefully. Why are the Jews forbidden to have a country? These people have contributed much to the world's culture and offered the best scientists, artists, doctors and have been victims of intolerance throughout history? Why are they forbidden to live in their national Zionist dream and return to their homeland, which was some desert which they cultivated and transformed in to one of the most beautiful landscapes on earth? Why do the Arabs and the Muslim world have to take everything, and claim every land they step on to be theirs. "Palestine" never existed, and should never, and that is coming from me an Arab who is classified as a "Palestinian." The creation of a Palestinian state would be the biggest threat to the existence of Israel and would not bring one day of peace to Israel; I know how my people think! It should never be allowed. In fact supporting a Palestinian State is the equivilent of supporting Nazi Germany and the persecution of Jews.

Israel has already made the mistake twice of giving land for peace, once in Southern Lebanon, and secondly in Gaza. We all know the terrible results: the expansion of Hizballah's power in Lebanon and the creation of a terrorist state in Gaza. Hamas and other terrorist organizations now have the space to launch more terrorist attacks and hostile activities on Israeli cities and villages.

Israel's right to exist shouldn't be open for discussion. Hamas, Hizballah or Islamic Jihad, and the people behind them, must be destroyed. Nothing should hinder Israel's army to do whatever it takes to protect their people and ensure the safety of Israel, from TelAviv, to the smallest settlement inside Israel which should include Judea and Samaria (the West Bank).

I don't blame the Israeli army for any defense measure it takes. It has been fighting Islamic terrorism long before any other nation faced their atrocities. The Israeli soldiers have been on the front line on behalf of the whole free world. I am proud to support the Israeli defense forces, the most civilized and humane army in the world, no matter how the media might try to portray them. One can't but respect the brave Israeli army which puts its soldiers' lives at risk in order to protect civilian life in Gaza or Southern Lebanon, the same civilians whom in both places have voted terrorist organizations to power. The same "innocent civilians" which deny Israel's right to exist, who never are held accountable for the democratic choices they have made.

Yet still, the Israeli army, and in the most critical war times, try as much as possible to avoid harming their lives, even at the expense of losing lives on their side as well as tactical and strategic disadvantages because of their moral behavior. I salute the Israeli army; I can't but support these heroes, and bow in respect to the memory of their fallen ones. I can't but stand with Israel in its fight for its existence amid this crazy part of the world.

I used to hate Israel with a passion but today I am proud to say that I have shed my hatred for Israel and it has transformed to a deep love, passion, and respect for Zionism and all the values it stands for.

I am proud that today I support the full restoration of Jerusalem. For the first time in my life I'm at peace with myself and in great harmony of what I believe in; standing with Israel and the Jewish people, who are the most forgiving and tolerant people on earth. They must be praised for their deep dedication to their cause, and for their patience in their endurance of harm and hatred.

Jerusalem should never be divided and soon the Temple Mount should also be liberated. All other religious groups in the world have free access to their most sacred sites yet the Jews still watch their holiest place, Solomon's temple, under occupation. I can't but feel compassionate with their dream, and I know that their fight is now my fight.

Israel's existence and survival is really a test and responsibility for the whole civilized world. It's the battle against Islam's imperial quest to conquer the whole world. Israel is the fortress and stronghold for freedom and tolerance in the Middle East.

I have held my tongue for too long but today a great burden has been lifted from my heart. I don't care if I've been considered a traitor by my people for loving Israel. It's an honor for me; if supporting Israel's right to exist is a sin then I'm a sinner. I'm proud to be an Arab who stands with a country that should be emulated by all its neighbors. Long live Israel! For the sake of its people and for the sake of the world's stability and freedom, I'm proud to say I love Israel. I know that even if I don't have Jewish blood in my veins, I know I am Israeli at heart.

Wriiten by Ayman Hassan a Palestinian Arab. Ayman wrote to us inspired about the work of Walid Shoebat and the work of the Walid Shoebat Foundation. He wishes to continue with his advocacy and we hope to use him in the media in the future.

Monday, January 28, 2008

Vatican City, January 28 (CNA).-Members of the Roman Rota, the second highest Church court, met with Pope Benedict this Friday to inaugurate their 100th year of service. Benedict XVI exhorted them in his address to protect the communion of the Church by applying a uniform standard of justice to the cases they hear.

Pointing to the fact that the court is celebrating its 100th anniversary, the Pontiff asked the jurists to reflect upon "the jurisprudence of the Rota within the context of the administration of justice within the Church".

"Any juridical system must seek to offer solutions", said the Pope. And in seeking such solutions, "apart from prudently assessing each individual case in its own uniqueness, the same general principles and norms of justice must be applied. Only in this way is it possible to create a climate of trust around the tribunal's activities and to avoid the arbitrariness of subjective criteria".

"These considerations may be perfectly applied to ecclesiastical tribunals. ... The need for unity in the essential criteria of justice and the importance of being able to reasonably foresee the significance of judicial decisions, is a particularly important ecclesial good for the interior life the People of God and for their institutional testimony to the world," the Pope continued.

"Sentences must always be founded on shared principles and norms of justice." said the Holy Father adding that such a requirement, "which is common to all legal systems, has particular consequence for the Church" because what is at issue is communion. "This implies the protection of everything that is shared by the Universal Church", and is "especially entrusted to the Supreme Authority and to the bodies that 'ad normam iuris' participate in its sacred power".

Benedict XVI highlighted the Roman Rota's notable achievements in the area of marriage over the last 100 years, indicating how the tribunal is still "called to undertake an arduous task which has great influence on the work of all other tribunals: that of determining the existence or otherwise of the married state, which is intrinsically anthropological, theological and juridical".

"Law cannot be reduced to a mere collection of positive rules which tribunals are called to apply", said the Pope. "The only solid foundation for legal work consists in conceiving of it as a real exercise in 'prudentia iuris', a prudence that is nowise arbitrary or relativist. ... Only in this way do legal maxims acquire their true value and avoid becoming a compilation of abstract and repetitive laws, exposed to the risk of subjective and arbitrary interpretations."

The Holy Father also stressed an area that is particularly sensitive in the United States, that of annulments. He said that juridical standards must be uniformly applied to annulment cases so that, "concrete reality may be objectively judged in the light of criteria that constantly reaffirm the truth of indissoluble marriage, which is open to all men and women in accordance with the designs of God".

Due to the universal nature of the Church and the diversity of juridical cultures in which she operates, said the Pope, "there is always a risk of the formation of 'sensim sine sensu' (local forms of jurisprudence), ever more distant from the common interpretation of positive laws and even from Church doctrine on matrimony". In this context, the Holy Father expressed the hope that attention be given to "the right ways to ensure that the jurisprudence of the Rota is ever more characterized by its unity, and is effectively accessible to all who work in justice, so as to find uniform application in all the tribunals of the Church".

The contributions of the ecclesiastical Magisterium concerning the juridical aspects of marriage, including talks by the Pontiff to the Rota, "must be considered from this realistic viewpoint", said Benedict XVI "They constitute an immediate guide for the work of all the tribunals of the Church, in as much as they teach with authority what is essential with respect to the married state".

In closing his address to them, the Pope encouraged members of the Roman Rota to use this hundredth anniversary as an occasion to increase their efforts "with an ever deeper ecclesial sense of justice, which is a true service to salvific communion".

VATICAN CITY, JAN. 28, 2008 (Zenit.org).- The Roman Rota should be increasingly characterized by unity, since the application of law in diverse cultures can tend to become distant from Church teaching, Benedict XVI says.

The Pope affirmed this today when he received in audience officials from the Tribunal of the Roman Rota on the occasion of the inauguration of the judicial year.

At the beginning of his address, the Holy Father said this year's commemoration of the first centenary of the re-establishment of the apostolic tribunal of the Roman Rota, as endorsed by Pope St. Pius X in 1908, provided an appropriate occasion to reflect upon "the jurisprudence of the Rota within the context of the administration of justice within the Church."

"Any juridical system must seek to offer solutions," said the Pope. And in seeking such solutions, "apart from prudently assessing each individual case in its own uniqueness, the same general principles and norms of justice must be applied," he said. "Only in this way is it possible to create a climate of trust around the tribunal's activities and to avoid the arbitrariness of subjective criteria."

"These considerations may be perfectly applied to ecclesiastical tribunals. [...] The need for unity in the essential criteria of justice and the importance of being able to reasonably foresee the significance of judicial decisions, is a particularly important ecclesial good for the interior life the people of God and for their institutional testimony to the world."

"Sentences must always be founded on shared principles and norms of justice," said the Holy Father. He added that such a requirement, "which is common to all legal systems, has particular consequences for the Church" because what is at issue is communion. "This implies the protection of everything that is shared by the universal Church."

Annulments

Benedict XVI highlighted the Roman Rota's notable achievements in the area of marriage over the last 100 years, indicating how the tribunal is still "called to undertake an arduous task that has great influence on the work of all other tribunals: that of determining the existence or otherwise of the married state, which is intrinsically anthropological, theological and juridical."

"Law cannot be reduced to a mere collection of positive rules which tribunals are called to apply," said the Pope. "The only solid foundation for legal work consists in conceiving of it as a real exercise in 'prudentia iuris,' a prudence that is nowise arbitrary or relativist. [...] Only in this way do legal maxims acquire their true value and avoid becoming a compilation of abstract and repetitive laws, exposed to the risk of subjective and arbitrary interpretations.

"Hence, the objective assessment of the facts in the light of the magisterium of the Church constitutes an important aspect of the activity of the Roman Rota, and has great influence on the work of ministers of justice in the tribunals of local Churches."

The Holy Father highlighted how, "through such work in the causes of nullity of marriage, concrete reality may be objectively judged in the light of criteria that constantly reaffirm the truth of indissoluble marriage, which is open to all men and women in accordance with the designs of God."

The Pontiff noted that due to the universal nature of the Church and the diversity of juridical cultures in which it operates, "there is always a risk of the formation of 'sensim sine sensu' [local forms of jurisprudence], ever more distant from the common interpretation of positive laws and even from Church doctrine on matrimony."

In this context, the Holy Father expressed the hope that attention be given to "the right ways to ensure that the jurisprudence of the Rota is ever more characterized by its unity, and is effectively accessible to all who work in justice, so as to find uniform application in all the tribunals of the Church."

The contributions of the ecclesiastical magisterium concerning the juridical aspects of marriage, including talks by the Pontiff to the Rota, "must be considered from this realistic viewpoint," said Benedict XVI. "They constitute an immediate guide for the work of all the tribunals of the Church, inasmuch as they teach with authority what is essential with respect to the married state."

The Pope encouraged members of the Roman Rota to use this 100th anniversary as an occasion to increase their efforts "with an ever deeper ecclesial sense of justice, which is a true service to salvific communion."

I get Zenit, Catholic News Agency and CWNews updates. I have not as yet compared this story to the others, but Phil Lawler made this interesting comment in the letter that came with the day's news... and I am perhaps in too much of a hurry to check out his meaning... if he means this the way that I interpret the sentence ... this COULD be a direct reference to US Tribunals...???

I highlighted that final sentence....

God bless!!

... snip...Pope Benedict's address to the Roman Rota, looked at first like an unremarkable event-- the sort of thing you'd expect for a routine annual affair-- until I caught a note that the Holy Father repeated, as if to make sure that his audience got the message. Check the final sentence of the CWN story, and see if you find something noteworthy there.

Vatican , Jan. 28 (CWNews.com) - Pope Benedict XVI encouraged the officials of the Roman Rota to work "with an ever deeper ecclesial sense of justice," as he addressed the members of the tribunal at the start of a new judicial year.

The Pope took note of the fact that the Roman Rota is marking the 100th anniversary of Sapienti Consilio, the apostolic constitution by Pope St. Pius X reforming the tribunal. That anniversary, he said, offers an opportunity to reflect on the proper understanding of canon law, which is designed for "the protection of everything that is shared by the universal Church."

The administration of canon law, the Pope said, should be guided by a search for truth, sensitive to both the particularities of the individual case and the universality of Church norms. He cautioned against the tendency to develop a sensim sine senu, in which local tribunals pursue their own norms, different from those of the universal Church. The Pope said that this tendency toward differences among canonical tribunals should be resisted-- especially at the level of the Roman Rota, which serves to reinforce the common standards that maintain unity within the Church.

Pope Benedict suggested that the drift toward different standards in Church law can be seen in cases involving marriage, in which local tribunals can grow "ever more distant from the common interpretation of positive laws and even from Church doctrine on matrimony."

Why I Do Not Trust Mitt Romney by Deal W. Hudson

Forwarding part of Deal Hudson's email (took off the superfluous things)...

I also have a hard time believing him. Part of that is personal, having experienced rhetoric that sounds good, but is deceptively worded in order to accomplish the purpose of the person speaking, and bring about their own agenda...

It is a long article, but worth reading.

God bless~

Why I Don't Trust Mitt Romneyby Deal W. Hudson 01/28/08

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has positioned himself as a pro-life, pro-family "social conservative." He has also received the endorsement of some prominent social conservatives. But Massachusetts-area grassroots Catholics familiar with his record as governor are mystified by that support.

Their view of Romney is that his "conversion" to social conservatism, and to the pro-life camp, was pragmatic, a tactic to win the presidential nomination. The liberal policies, including pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage that elected Romney governor of Massachusetts could not elect him as the presidential nominee of the GOP, so sweeping changes in his political philosophy were necessary.

but for your reading convenience, the entire post here:

Sports writers: a parallel magisterium?

For many like me, the term "sports writer" conjures up the image of a high school athletics star who, after playing so-so in college and never making it to the pros, parleyed a certain facility with words into getting paid to watch other people (most of whom would never make it to the pros either) play games. What we never realized, it seems, was just how many sports writers apparently spend all their free time studying moral theology, canon law, and the history of religion in public life. Yet, just look at how many sports writers feel qualified to publish opinions applauding the abortionism that St. Louis University basketball Coach Rick Majerus is publically and defiantly maintaining against his Archbishop Raymond Burke.

But folks, after reading a raft of pep rallies published for Coach Majerus over the weekend, I've reached a conclusion: if sports writers are really qualified to parse Catholic moral theology and ecclesiastical discipline against a world class theologian and canonist like Abp. Burke, then I'm more than qualified to coach college ball. Hey, I've watched some NBA All-Star videos, I saw "Hoosiers" (which, okay, wasn't about college basketball, but so what?),and people still talk about that right hand hook shot I made in the eighth grade basketball camp.

Laugh if you want, but that's about the level of ecclesiastical sophistication that sports writers are bringing to bear against Abp. Burke for his reaction to Majerus' support for abortion and experimentation on embryonic human beings. But let's be very clear about something here: Coach Majerus, not Abp. Burke, violated the wall of separation between Church and Sport, and now it's up to Majerus to repair the damage he did. In the meantime, the more his allies in the sports media try to defend the coach's blunder, the more they show themselves to be way, way out of their league.

One pernicious line being pushed by the sports media machine runs thus: It's unfair to rag on poor Majerus cuz, after all, he's just a hoops coach who was caught off guard with a trick question by the media. That's total baloney. Rick Majerus touts his Catholic education whenever it suits him, and he has dealt with, and even worked for, the media for many years. Though "just a coach", Majerus is probably the highest paid official at St. Louis University (good grief!), and he soon will be, if he is not already, the most nationally recognized name the university has.

If, therefore, anyone at a Jesuit educational institution needs to be called for reiterating public dissent from Church moral teaching, for supporting the canonically criminal acts of abortion and experimentation on embryonic humans, and for stiff-arming an archbishop who has called for a retraction, it's SLU basketball coach Rick Majerus.

Unless, that is, you also think that Abp. Burke is qualified to coach NCAA Men's Division I basketball. You know, just like I am. +++

Kindest regards, folks. edp.

LightoftheLaw

Though this came a couple of days ago, I had not yet read it. Today, I am forwarding only the part about the Coach and Archbishop Burke, as a background to the next post. The bold part in his first paragraph was done by me, and I am not including the section on Canon Law Anniversary. (You can read that at his website/blog when you go there to read the rest of THIS one).

God bless!!

It’s been a very busy week in canon law. There are two Canon Law Blog posts to end this week, one on the unbelievable attempt by a Catholic college basketball coach to tell an archbishop to keep his opinions on Church teaching to himself, the second on the 25th anniversary of the Code of Canon Law that occurs today.Kindest regards, folks. edp.Does Coach Majerus really think he can out play Abp. Burke?I'm not making this up.

Jesuit-run St. Louis University's basketball coach Rick Majerus (yes, a basketball coach) is telling St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke (yes, the canonist archbishop), to mind his own business regarding Majerus' outspoken support for (get ready for it) abortion and experimentation on embryonic humans! If it weren't that expressing support for such deeply offensive conduct is so deadly serious, I'd be laughing.